SC issues contempt notice to Uttarakhand forest officer, stays HC order halting trial in criminal case

New Delhi, Oct 15 (PTI) Perturbed over the stay by the Uttarakhand High Court on the prosecution of forest officer Rahul in a corruption case, the Supreme Court on Wednesday not only issued the contempt notice to him but also stayed the high court order besides transferring to itself the judicial records.

The sanction to prosecute the Indian Forest Service officer was granted by the Uttarakhand government following various orders from the top court which has been monitoring illegal constructions and rampant felling of trees in the Jim Corbett National park in the state.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was irked over the fact the officer, despite being aware of the proceedings in the top court, moved the Uttarakhand High Court and got a stay on the state government's decision to prosecute him a criminal case lodged for his alleged omission and commission.

Issuing the notice to the officer, the bench sought his personal presence before it on November 11 and show cause as to why the contempt proceedings be not initiated against him.

"We are deeply perturbed by the approach of Rahul (the officer) and the approach of the high court," the CJI said, adding that the officer was keenly observing the proceedings in the top court and yet he decided to move the high court instead of putting forth his grievances here.

The bench went on to add, "The high court, being a constitutional court, has vast powers. But, when it was the matter of record that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter then the high court should not have entertained the plea and granted the stay..." "We direct that the proceedings before the high court is withdrawn from the high court and its order of October 10 to staying the grant of sanction is stayed," the CJI ordered.

The development was apprised to the bench by senior advocate K Parmeshwar, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curiae in the PIL filed by T N Godavarman in 1995 on issues related to forest conservation.

On September 17, the top court had directed the Uttarakhand government to conclude within three months a departmental inquiry against the officer accused of corruption. It had also asked the Centre to grant sanction to prosecute him under graft charges.

The bench had asked as to why the state government was giving a "special treatment" to the officer after finding out that he was given a special posting despite adverse observations by the CEC (Central Empowered Committee).

During the hearing, the bench noted that the state government had granted sanction for prosecution of all officials except Rahul.

"Today it is informed that the state has granted sanction for prosecution against the said official. It is submitted that in so far as sanction under Section 19 the Prevention of Corruption Act is considered... The state says it is forwarded to the central government.

"We accept the stand of the state government. We direct the Uttarakhand government to conclude departmental enquiry against the said officer expeditiously and within three months and the Centre to grant sanction for prosecution under the PC Act and take the decision within one month," the CJI had ordered.

The bench was hearing a matter concerning the appointment of Rahul, a former director of the Corbett Tiger Reserve, as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve.

Heads of governments cannot be expected to be "old days' kings" and we are not in a "feudal era", the bench had said, questioning Uttarakhand Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami for appointing the IFS officer as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, disregarding the opinions of the state's forest minister and others.

The court had observed that there was a specific noting right from the first officer, which was endorsed by the deputy secretary, the principal secretary and also by the state's forest minister that Rahul should not be posted as the director of the Rajaji Tiger Reserve.

"There is something like a public trust doctrine in this country. The heads of the executive cannot be expected to be old days' kings that whatever they have said, they will do," the bench had observed, adding, "We are not in a feudal era." "Why should the chief minister have special affection for him (the officer)," the bench asked, adding, "Just because he is the chief minister, can he do anything?" It also observed that a departmental proceeding was pending against the officer concerned.

Pointing out that the noting had said the officer should not be posted at the Rajaji Tiger Reserve, the court said the chief minister "just ignores it".

"If you disagree right from the desk officer, the deputy secretary, the principal secretary, the minister, then the least that is expected is that there is some application of mind as to why he is disagreeing with the proposal," it said.

It was alleged that the disciplinary proceeding against the officer was related to the Corbett Tiger Reserve where several officers were served show-cause notices. PTI SJK ZMN